Are you suggesting that it's actually unscrupulous theists posing as atheists?
I'm suggesting that often atheists don't seem to realize what the position of being atheist actually entails.
I suspect you are conflating beliefs with the word position.
I don't think so, one can certainly take up a particular position concerning a particular subject but taking any particular position on a subject entails having some sort of belief concerning the subject. For instance if one would ask me about the, oft used to prove a point, unicorns existence I would either be in a position to present my beliefs and reasonings on the matter of their existence or non-existence or If I did not know what you meant by "unicorn" I would have to remain in a position of non participation until I were educated on what was meant by "unicorn" after which I would be able to state my position. Once I have a position though - be it "Yes.", "No.", or "I don't know." one of necessity has to have beliefs concerning the subject....Yes,
because I have had personal experience, or No,
because people can be deluded, or I don't know
because I haven't evidence which leans me towards either yes or no. If there is no "because" behind your answer then it is without foundation and meaningless. Because = Belief. True belief or false belief but we fool ourselves if we believe we can "think" about a subject without consideration of a foundation of pre-existent beliefs.
One cannot take up an engaged position on anything without fundamentally referring to ones current beliefs.
Atheists do have a position on the many, many god concepts in human history, but knowing about these many ideas doesn't impy there is some personal belief about them.
I believe the "position" you speak of here is a condition. Atheists have to be in a condition of knowing what is meant by the terms being used. In Atheists case it is "god" - its in the definition of Atheist so atheists must have knowledge of the subject. They are then in the condition of having knowledge of the term but this does not equate to knowledge of reality. By reality here I mean the reality of what belief is being debated.
For that Atheists need to be in a position of belief based on their condition of knowledge. To have no belief on a subject is to be in a condition of ignorance of that subject who's position on that subject will reflect that condition. (If I have no belief, I have nothing to say, no thought to apply to the subject).
I think we all know though that Atheists have plenty to say and they do.
I also think that its absurd to believe that Atheists who have plenty to say do not say it from a position of personal belief.
Otherwise I'd have to believe all atheists are passionless robots.
I see some theists try to impose some belief onto atheists as a tactic to switch the burden of proof.
So I've heard time and time again from atheists. Its ridiculous on both sides to think that anyone can prove anything. No one can definitively prove anything. Science has shown this for quite some time.
By saying this your hypocritically trying to solidify your own position by pressing onto the opposition what you know very well is an impossibility to begin with. Atheists tell theists to prove God exists and theists tell atheists to prove it doesn't. Both these requests are absurd and a waste of time.
I will say that theists one up atheists in at least acknowledging what they believe to be true while atheists seem to be mostly busy with convincing themselves and others that they believe nothing.
After all one doesn't have to expend energy defending a belief one doesn't even have. Which makes me wonder what it is the atheists on here are expending their time and energy on? Having no belief? At least theists attempt to give evidence for their beliefs. Atheists however make a claim which cannot realistically hold water which is that they can think about a subject and offer counter evidence all without having any belief whatsoever concerning the subject matter.
I see some Atheists as trying to say they have no beliefs as a tactic to avoid engaging theists on an equal footing. They wish to imply that theists are in a valley of ignorance while they are basking in the glorious sunshine on a mountain top.
By your way of thinking you have beliefs about the Easter Bunny, and would that imply it exists or is a plausible thing since you give the idea attention?
I certainly do have beliefs about the Easter Bunny but of course that is contingent upon what you mean by Easter Bunny. An idea? A living creature with certain physiological traits? A particular creature of particular purpose? My beliefs would naturally include to where or if we can trace its origins and what that origin has to say about itself in comparison to my experiences and pre-existent beliefs about known reality, etc.
But I cannot formulate a belief on whether or not the Easter Bunny exists or doesn't exist as someone describes the Easter Bunny to be unless I first "entertain" the idea as potentially plausible. For or against its existence the natural inclination is to take up a position based upon our evolved foundational and propositional beliefs.
If I don't formulate a belief about such things then I cannot engage in productive thought about such things. We all engage in debate with axiomatic beliefs which are themselves molded and or modified based upon our pre-existent beliefs in a feedback loop.
The more relatable the proposition is to our pre existent evolving belief systems about reality the firmer our beliefs about that proposition becomes - Yes I believe it exists or No I believe it doesn't exist.
The further from relatable to our pre existent belief systems the closer to not being able to engage in thought on the matter the proposition becomes - we are left in a state of ignorance, "I don't know?" A state which cannot engage in meaningful discussion.
Here you seem to be confusing and conflating the meanings of belief and knowledge.
Not at all in consideration of how I am using the terms. However, perhaps you are using the terms differently.
Knowledge is being aware of the data that you possess. (Definitions, quantized information, statements, etc.) Strip away the self awareness of that knowledge and you are little more than a computer which holds a certain amount of data.
In that case you could hold all the data in the universe but still be ignorant of its applicability to anything.
Belief is being aware of what that data may be applied to. Often in unique ways.
Both can be less than accurate.
In the above sense atheists can claim all the knowledge they wish but without a belief concerning that knowledge, without applying a meaning to the data, they would remain impotent with its applicability and thus could not engage in meaningful debate. Once you apply meaning to interpretive data, you've implemented a belief.
Notice that atheists are responding to other people making claims.
With claims of there own. That is...I'm claiming that your claim has not been proven and needs to be proven in order to be true.
It hardly matters who first claimed what. No claim can be made, no counterclaim about that claim can be made, without a belief.
Discourse has to begin somewhere, and religious debates tend to begin with an ffoirmative claim that some sort of God exists, or the like.
Ok, I can't disagree with your assessment here. Hence what I said above. Discourse does have to begin somewhere and it hardly matters who begins it. I've yet to run into a theist who ceases the debate and declares victory with the simple declaration of "I believe God exists!" end of story. There is typically an evolving story behind that belief and there is typically an evolving story behind atheistic belief. In light of presented interpretive evidences what side of the fence one leans to is often a reflection of who the person has evolved to become given their experiences and biological dispositions.
Atheists are ready to challenge what the religious claimants say.
As they should. But they can hardly challenge a claim without making claims of their own.
What strikes me about posts like this is what is the ulterior motive in these sentences. They come across as factual and overt, but the word use reveals something else.
We all have ulterior motives in the sense that not all our motives are apparent to each other at once not even to ourselves. Sometimes motives have to be unintentionally revealed. I say unintentionally because I'm unaware if I have any subconscious or hidden motives here other than to debate the issues presented...
That is, the OP's original question was asked of Atheists who for all intents and purposes shouldn't be able to make any statements concerning such a question if we are to believe atheists claims to have no beliefs concerning such matters.
